[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-c] Re: A question about .INT (Fwd for Mike StJohns)
------- Forwarded Message
To: Eric Brunner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: A question about .INT
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 13 Dec 1999 20:24:33 -0500.
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:24:12 -0800
From: "Mike StJohns" <email@example.com>
> Hi Mike,
> There is a person on a mailing list who seems to have a propriatary interest
> in .INT, or is equivalently free associating. Here's the blurp in question:
> >From the standpoint of economic policy, one new
> >TLD, devoted to some relatively minor market segment such as
> >.mus, will tell us absolutely nothing about any trademark or
> >competition policy considerations that might be posed by the
> >addition of new TLDs. A .mus TLD might be lucky to get 500 new
> >registrations in its first year. What would we know at the end
> >of that period? Nothing new. We had similar experiences with the
> >addition of .int a few years ago.
> The author of this oddly pronouned prose appears to think that .INT was
> conceived in joy and welcomed without reserve -- not quite the way you
> recounted in Minneapolis. A $.25 tour of the history of .INT would be in
> order. If you are too busy (or wouldn't touch this with a 10' pole), not
> to worry. This is just a side issue. It just bothers me when people fake
> what they need to make a point, when the truth is out there.
OK - back in around 1987 I was a brash Captain at the Defense Data Network Program Management Office. One of my contracts was the Network Information Center at SRI. I got a call from one of my contractors at the NIC asking me to approve the addition of the .INT domain - at this time the NIC was handling all top levels except country codes (.US was at ISI I think). I asked them to hold off pending me discussing this with Jon (who had requested it on behalf of ARPA who in turn had been asked about it by NATO). After talking with Jon and the PM at ARPA I approved the creation of the domain with the understanding that a) it wouldn't be run at the NIC but somewhere else, and b) they'd provide a fairly specific policy for who could register in the domain. (Hmm... approved is a fairly strong word here - declined to object is probably more on the correct tone). The ARPA PM ended up having a machine at ARPA support the domain and the policy that got passed to me was "Internation!
al treaty organizations and international number spaces". Brief and to the point. 7 Years later I found myself hoist by my own petard as I became the responsible ARPA PM. I ended up transfering the domain to ISI (for service), and asked Jon and Paul Mockapetris to figure out where to transfer the policy control of the domain for a permanent home - we discussed ITU and I think that's where we left it I haven't paid attention since I left ARPA in 1996.
My objections were somewhat pro-forma - I thought that .ORG was more appropriate for NATO and other internationals, and that the .INT domain would continue to be rather small compared to other top levels. I was also concerned as I had been directed to move the NIC away from serving non-gov't non-DOD folks and didn't want to add yet another class of customers to the NIC.
------- End of Forwarded Message